Originally published February 13 2006
Lawsuit looms for Frito-Lay unless it offers an olestra warning to consumers
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has announced it will initiate litigation against Frito-Lay unless the company changes its policy and offers a warning to consumers of Ruffles, Doritos and Tostitos about the potential health problems posed by the ingredient olestra in these “reduced fat” snack foods.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a Washington based nutrition group, is threatening litigation in Massachusetts against Frito-Lay for not warning consumers about potential adverse reactions posed by the use of olestra in its "reduced fat" products like Ruffles, Lay's potato chips, Doritos, and Tostitos.
CSPI has been frustrated by Frito-Lay's and PepsiCo's (its parent corporation) refusal to voluntarily provide information on packages warning consumers of the numerous unpleasant digestive problems associated with olestra, including loose stools, abdominal cramping, and frequent bowel movements.
Frito-Lay, however, maintains that the company is complying with all federal laws and regulations and therefore does not need to alter the labeling on its products as demanded by CSPI.
In 1996, when olestra was first approved, the FDA required a health warning be printed on product labels.
But In 2003, the agency dropped the requirement, saying ''real-life consumption studies" revealed that olestra caused only ''a minor increase in bowel movement frequency compared to those people who consumed only full-fat chips."
In a letter to Frito-Lay and PepsiCo, CSPI said that Frito-Lay is attempting to mislead consumers about the dangers of olestra, first by removing the warning label, then by renaming the products that contained the additive.
The company, which has received reports of adverse reactions to these products all around the United States, believes CSPI is pursing litigation in Massachusetts because of the extensive protections afforded consumers under the that State's consumer protection act.
That very law may undercut the threatened lawsuit, however, since one of its provisions says it would not apply to ''transactions or actions otherwise permitted under laws as administered by any regulatory board or officer acting under statutory authority of the commonwealth or of the United States."
Here, the FDA's 2003 decision to do away with the olestra health warning may be enough to require a dismissal of any lawsuit contemplated by CSPI.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml